You never cease to amaze me.
How long before a Fudge Packer & Taste Like Chicken national holiday?
How can you spew vile crap like this and not get play penned?
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
You mean like the constitutional right to consume alcohol? The one that allows for for gambling?
Is there any wording in the constitution that pertains to marriage of any kind (I haven't read the entire document, so I don't know)? As long as we're on the subject, is there anything in the constitution that PROHIBITS OR BANS the use of drugs or other substances?There is no constitutional right to use alcohol or OBVIOUSLY to gamble since it is illegal most everywhere. Let's get something straight. What the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, prohibits is government action that infirnges on the rights of people based on their membership in a protected class. If they are in a protected class, any state action that has an effect of discriminating must meet a very high standard of "compelling government interest." If the person is not in a protected class then there must merely be a rational basis for it. Protected classes are race, sex, religion, ethnicity and now sexual orientation.
Drinkers, drug users and gamblers are NOT members of a protected class therefore the government may regulate and prohibit actions that affect them.
In the marriage case, what it came down to is that five court members felt that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman discriminated against homosexuals without a compleling government interest in doing so.
We certainly do not live in a libertarian society where the state cannot take actions that limit our freedoms. They do that all the time. The Constitution is a very limited document.
Well, there is the 21st Ammendment to the Constitution, but other than that...
All that did is repeal the 18th amendment. States and localities are still free to regulate and or prohibit liquor as they see fit.
So, Texas AG has said state workers can legally discriminate by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples base on religious objections. If it is my job to issue marriage licenses, which are a legal document, how in the world are my religious beliefs compromised by issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple? Could I then turn around and decide to issue a license a hetero couple if one or both have been divorced, hetero couples who have had pre-martial sex or hetero couples have children out of wedlock. Do people get to just pick what parts of the bible to back & ignore the rest? Sounds like "religious freedom" is being co-opted into code for "legal discrimination" to me.
Texas AG: State workers can deny licenses to gay couples
BETSY BLANEY, Associated PressLUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Texas' conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Supreme Court decision giving same-sex couples the right to marry a "lawless ruling" and said state workers can cite their religious objections in denying marriage licenses.
He warned in a statement Sunday that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion requested by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton says "numerous lawyers" stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.
In its 5-4 opinion Friday, the Supreme Court did nothing to eliminate rights of religious liberty, Paxton's opinion states.
"This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech," the AG wrote.
While many Republicans have said they disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, officials in most states have said that they will abide by it. Paxton's comments echoed those Friday of Gov. Greg Abbott, who said Texans can't be forced by the court ruling to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
"Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected," Abbott said Friday.
In his two-page memo, Abbott ordered agency leaders that no one in their ranks could take "adverse action" against someone acting on their religious beliefs, including "granting or denying benefits." That led to early confusion and questions over whether state agencies might deny health or retirement benefits to the spouses of gay employees.
Abbott spokesman John Wittman later issued a clarifying statement Friday, saying the directive doesn't order the denial of benefits to same-sex couples. He said it only "ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."
Paxton in his statement Sunday says the justices "weakened the rule of law" and "fabricated a new constitutional right."
Texas was not part of the case before the Supreme Court. A federal judge in 2013 ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional but declined to enforce the ruling while it was on appeal. Since Friday's ruling, a federal district court in Texas has prohibited Texas from enforcing state laws that define marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The answer to your question is yes. People are very much allowed to pick out what parts of the bible they follow or no parts of the bible or write their own bible. The state has zero business being involved in religion in any capacity.
In terms of your first two sentences, of course people can practice religion however they want. What I was really talking about though are government employees who are going to claim a religious objection to gay marriage as a reason not to do their job issuing marriage licenses, but not raise an objection when issuing licenses to, for example, people who are on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th marriage. Someone can make their own choices about their own religious practices, but it crosses the line to bigotry when they sit in judgement of someone else and use religion as the excuse. IMO of course.
Your last sentence I agree with completely, and to me that means that a state or municipal employee who's job it is to issue marriage licenses must provide marriage licenses to anyone who is legally entitled to one and cannot hide behind their own personal bias, be it based on religion or anything else, to deny issuing someone a license.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with people who have a religious objection to same sex marriage or homosexuality or anything else that their religion tells them to object to, that's their choice. But if you can't tell already, I do have a problem with people who project their religious views onto others, which is essentially what the Texas AG is encouraging clerks in his jurisdiction to do.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by gondicar]
I agree with you that a muncipal worker has no right to claim an exemption, religious or otherwise from issuing a legal marriage license. Of course that is quite different than forcing a religious organization to provide birth control or access to abortions etc. The former is a government worker not compelled to work for the government. The other is a private religious organization. The person seeking the birth control is not compelled to work for them. Do you agree?
So, Texas AG has said state workers can legally discriminate by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples base on religious objections. If it is my job to issue marriage licenses, which are a legal document, how in the world are my religious beliefs compromised by issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple? Could I then turn around and decide to issue a license a hetero couple if one or both have been divorced, hetero couples who have had pre-martial sex or hetero couples have children out of wedlock. Do people get to just pick what parts of the bible to back & ignore the rest? Sounds like "religious freedom" is being co-opted into code for "legal discrimination" to me.
Texas AG: State workers can deny licenses to gay couples
BETSY BLANEY, Associated PressLUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Texas' conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Supreme Court decision giving same-sex couples the right to marry a "lawless ruling" and said state workers can cite their religious objections in denying marriage licenses.
He warned in a statement Sunday that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion requested by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton says "numerous lawyers" stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.
In its 5-4 opinion Friday, the Supreme Court did nothing to eliminate rights of religious liberty, Paxton's opinion states.
"This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech," the AG wrote.
While many Republicans have said they disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, officials in most states have said that they will abide by it. Paxton's comments echoed those Friday of Gov. Greg Abbott, who said Texans can't be forced by the court ruling to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
"Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected," Abbott said Friday.
In his two-page memo, Abbott ordered agency leaders that no one in their ranks could take "adverse action" against someone acting on their religious beliefs, including "granting or denying benefits." That led to early confusion and questions over whether state agencies might deny health or retirement benefits to the spouses of gay employees.
Abbott spokesman John Wittman later issued a clarifying statement Friday, saying the directive doesn't order the denial of benefits to same-sex couples. He said it only "ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."
Paxton in his statement Sunday says the justices "weakened the rule of law" and "fabricated a new constitutional right."
Texas was not part of the case before the Supreme Court. A federal judge in 2013 ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional but declined to enforce the ruling while it was on appeal. Since Friday's ruling, a federal district court in Texas has prohibited Texas from enforcing state laws that define marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The answer to your question is yes. People are very much allowed to pick out what parts of the bible they follow or no parts of the bible or write their own bible. The state has zero business being involved in religion in any capacity.
In terms of your first two sentences, of course people can practice religion however they want. What I was really talking about though are government employees who are going to claim a religious objection to gay marriage as a reason not to do their job issuing marriage licenses, but not raise an objection when issuing licenses to, for example, people who are on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th marriage. Someone can make their own choices about their own religious practices, but it crosses the line to bigotry when they sit in judgement of someone else and use religion as the excuse. IMO of course.
Your last sentence I agree with completely, and to me that means that a state or municipal employee who's job it is to issue marriage licenses must provide marriage licenses to anyone who is legally entitled to one and cannot hide behind their own personal bias, be it based on religion or anything else, to deny issuing someone a license.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with people who have a religious objection to same sex marriage or homosexuality or anything else that their religion tells them to object to, that's their choice. But if you can't tell already, I do have a problem with people who project their religious views onto others, which is essentially what the Texas AG is encouraging clerks in his jurisdiction to do.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by gondicar]
I agree with you that a muncipal worker has no right to claim an exemption, religious or otherwise from issuing a legal marriage license. Of course that is quite different than forcing a religious organization to provide birth control or access to abortions etc. The former is a government worker not compelled to work for the government. The other is a private religious organization. The person seeking the birth control is not compelled to work for them. Do you agree?
I agree that they are different issues and have nothing to do with each other (so not sure why you are even bringing it up...but I'll go with you, thread swerve ahead!). I also agree that the person seeking the birth control is not compelled to work for any particular organization. However, I disagree that religious institutions are being forced to provide birth control or access to abortions. As employers, they are providing access to insurance (and other workplace requirements mandated by law), not to any specific medical procedures or drugs. Health care workers are providing the birth control or access to abortions, and insurance provides a mechanism to help pay for it. I see it as a huge stretch to say that religious organizations are being forced to provide birth control or access to abortions. I certainly don't think my employer provides those things to me, my doctor does that and the insurance helps to cover the costs which is what it is designed to do.
[Edited on 7/1/2015 by gondicar]
How long before a Fudge Packer & Taste Like Chicken national holiday?
How can you spew vile crap like this and not get play penned?
I agree 100%.
He should have been locked up long ago.
Why? Why can't I just ignore the Whipping Post? This place is INSANE!!!!!! 😮
Why? Why can't I just ignore the Whipping Post? This place is INSANE!!!!!! 😮
true.
so I guess that places most people in the "and others" category in the "smartest posters and others" thread. 😛
of course, I'm speaking just for myself... 
of course, I'm speaking just for myself...
That was your first mistake...
of course, I'm speaking just for myself...
That was your first mistake...
of which there are many... 😛
KEEP THE L IN FLAG! (sign at an anti gay marriage demonstraton)
Defying order, clerk won't give gay couple marriage license
In Kentucky, county clerks issue marriage licenses, but someone else must "solemnize" the marriage before the license can be filed with the county clerk. Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs. But Bunning rejected that argument, saying Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."
Defying order, clerk won't give gay couple marriage license
In Kentucky, county clerks issue marriage licenses, but someone else must "solemnize" the marriage before the license can be filed with the county clerk. Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs. But Bunning rejected that argument, saying Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."
Full story at: http://www.wgme.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/defying-order-clerk-wont-give-gay-couple-marriage-license-28663.shtml#.Vcyn3flExT9/blockquote >
As she is an American citizen she should understand the separation of church and state. What she really means is that working for the state violates her Christian beliefs, and therefore she should quit her job as a government employee as the performance of her job violates her Christian beliefs.
Defying order, clerk won't give gay couple marriage license
In Kentucky, county clerks issue marriage licenses, but someone else must "solemnize" the marriage before the license can be filed with the county clerk. Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs. But Bunning rejected that argument, saying Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."
Full story at: http://www.wgme.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/defying-order-clerk-wont-give-gay-couple-marriage-license-28663.shtml#.Vcyn3flExT9/blockquote >
As she is an American citizen she should understand the separation of church and state. What she really means is that working for the state violates her Christian beliefs, and therefore she should quit her job as a government employee as the performance of her job violates her Christian beliefs.
This is from the judge in the case:
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
Ask a gay couple to grow it on their patio and the cops will leave them alone under the threat of a discrimination against us lawsuit if they harass them.
Any church can still refuse to marry anyone under the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. For instance, the Catholic Church can still refuse to carry out the religious ceremony of marriage of two gay men. Nothing in today's decision changes anything about that constitutional granted right. Sadly, some on the right are claiming today's decision will eventually lead to the end of such rights....I don't think it will.
Fortunately marriage is first and foremost a legal procedure and secondly a religious ceremony. Thank god for separation of Church and State is all I can say as I'm a supporter of gay marriage and consider today's ruling a huge victory for those gay couples who have been denied the legal rights that heterosexual couples have had since this countries inception.
[Edited on 6/27/2015 by Chain]
The problem is that they wanted to re-define "marriage", all they needed to do was gain the legal rights they sought under a "civil union" or "domestic partnership". The insurance companies etc. could have provided the same legal rights to benefits to them under those things or come up with a new politically correct designation that would include them under it. Redefining "marriage" will lead to religious wars and possibly states wanting to ultimately secede. Some states have banned abortion within their jurisdictions, even though it is a federal law allowing it. What rights do these states have to ban gay marriages if their populous is against it?
shouldn't this have been a matter for the house and senate to vote on? I'd think that would encompass a broader scope than the SC deciding...
That was Scalia's objection, it should be a legislative not a judicial decision. As much as I am in favor of the result, I agree with Scalia on the process.
I also tend to think these things should be handled democratically through legislative action as has been steadily happening in more and more states. That said I personally support gay mariage. I have no problem with it. I also support religious freedom, however, and I see trouble ahead as activists will try to eliminate the rights of the Churches (and Mosques and Synagogues presumably) to refuse to support gay marriage. That troubles me. I would hope that gay people who want to get married will be satisfied to utilize one of the Churches that permits it and leaves others alone. I would be shocked if this happens.
The Church of Satan allows it, this could create windfall profits for them!
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
Scalia complains about every ruling he does not agree with, even throwing his colleagues under the bus in the process, so I take his ranting's with a grain of salt. He is the Donald Trump of the SCOTUS.
When it was time to strike down DOMA, four liberal judges ruled that it was a State matter. Remember? Now they reverse their very own ruling a few years later. So much for consistency.
Congress does not have the right to legislate marriage. That is a State's issue.
The states do not have the right to discriminate against individuals. They can't allow 2 people to enter a contract, and deny that right to 2 other people. Equal protection under the law. It IS in the constitution
Excellent.
Any church can still refuse to marry anyone under the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. For instance, the Catholic Church can still refuse to carry out the religious ceremony of marriage of two gay men. Nothing in today's decision changes anything about that constitutional granted right. Sadly, some on the right are claiming today's decision will eventually lead to the end of such rights....I don't think it will.
Fortunately marriage is first and foremost a legal procedure and secondly a religious ceremony. Thank god for separation of Church and State is all I can say as I'm a supporter of gay marriage and consider today's ruling a huge victory for those gay couples who have been denied the legal rights that heterosexual couples have had since this countries inception.
[Edited on 6/27/2015 by Chain]
The problem is that they wanted to re-define "marriage", all they needed to do was gain the legal rights they sought under a "civil union" or "domestic partnership". The insurance companies etc. could have provided the same legal rights to benefits to them under those things or come up with a new politically correct designation that would include them under it. Redefining "marriage" will lead to religious wars and possibly states wanting to ultimately secede. Some states have banned abortion within their jurisdictions, even though it is a federal law allowing it. What rights do these states have to ban gay marriages if their populous is against it?
NO STATE has banned abortion nor can they unless Roe v Wade were overturned.
I thought it was still illegal in North Dakota, but it appears that some states have just tried to make it difficult. There there is no provider that will do the procedure in 98% of the counties there. Alabama did the same thing. As have some other places. If you can't find a Dr. to do the procedure, you won't get one there.
I think the states should have the right to decide the matter, not the Supreme Court of the federal government. The laws governing any state will differ according to local communities. The federal govt. oversteps it's bounds taking on things that were never means to be within their powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state
[Edited on 8/14/2015 by gina]
Gay=Queer
Strange,odd,peculiar.
Even Carl said in Slingblade,"Bible says a man ain't supposed ta lay with another man.
But some of ya'll keep on preaching your ball deep in the grocery hole doctrine as normal behavior.
Oh yeah! Thought some of ya'll said Gregg & Betts would never play together again.
Gay=Queer
Strange,odd,peculiar.
Even Carl said in Slingblade,"Bible says a man ain't supposed ta lay with another man.
But some of ya'll keep on preaching your ball deep in the grocery hole doctrine as normal behavior.Oh yeah! Thought some of ya'll said Gregg & Betts would never play together again.
Please post the dates and locations of any upcoming Gregg & Betts concerts. I'm sure plenty of us would like to buy tickets.
At least we know one thing for sure, Gregg and Dickey will uphold heterosexuality to the hilt! 🙁
At least we know one thing for sure, Gregg and Dickey will uphold heterosexuality to the hilt!
I could care less what people do. However, I'd be curious of your source of info. / knowledge. Can you please share?
A federal judge ordered to her issue licenses, the appeals court held up that order, and SCOTUS has now declined to intervene in the case, leaving her no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses to gay couples. A district judge could now hold her in contempt, which can carry steep fines or jail time. Time for her to leave office and find a job that she can do in good conscience.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-still-wont-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses/
EDIT: Comment deleted - I thought this was a newer thread. I've already stated my opinion and feelings.
RB
[Edited on 9/1/2015 by Rusty]
A federal judge ordered to her issue licenses, the appeals court held up that order, and SCOTUS has now declined to intervene in the case, leaving her no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses to gay couples. A district judge could now hold her in contempt, which can carry steep fines or jail time. Time for her to leave office and find a job that she can do in good conscience.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-still-wont-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses/
Time for her to get on board. I'm guessing she'll start issuing licenses rather than give up her taxpayer funded job. If not, then let her go to work for some church where her resistance & narrow minded views would fit in better.
A federal judge ordered to her issue licenses, the appeals court held up that order, and SCOTUS has now declined to intervene in the case, leaving her no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses to gay couples. A district judge could now hold her in contempt, which can carry steep fines or jail time. Time for her to leave office and find a job that she can do in good conscience.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-still-wont-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses/
Time for her to get on board. I'm guessing she'll start issuing licenses rather than give up her taxpayer funded job. If not, then let her go to work for some church where her resistance & narrow minded views would fit in better.
____________________________________________________________________
No.
It is time for people who demand homosexual rights to respect someone’s religious rights.
So where is the Kentucky Governor during all this? Doesn't this lady have a boss to answer to when she fails or refuses to perform her job?
So where is the Kentucky Governor during all this? Doesn't this lady have a boss to answer to when she fails or refuses to perform her job?
__________________________________________________________________________
She answers to a Higher Authority.
